i don’t understand

Published August 9th, 2006 by Bobby Henderson

Bobby, I don’t understand. I have recently read your article to the KC school board. You seem to be arguing that the FSM created the earth. I believe the God of the Bible created the earth. Your argument states that schools should teach evolution, intelligent design, and FSM creation.

Both the Christian belief and yours state that something intellegent created the universe (and it didn’t just happen by accident). Is the spaghetti monster not intelligent? Is that the argument for teaching both.

The teaching of Intelligent Design does not promote my God any more than yours or anybody elses for that matter. It shouldn’t even promote a god as the creator. All Intelliegent Design promotes is another theory about the beginning of the universe. That as complex as this universe is that it could have been (in theory) created.

Your letter gives the impression that you want your religion to be taught. I beleive that is wrong. We may have different beliefs about how the universe came into existence but we both believe in Intelligent Design.

27 Responses to “i don’t understand”

I have to disagree with you there. It clearly states in GotFSM (Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) that most of the things taught in science class are theories. The first one that comes to mind is gravity, which is explain in GotFSM that we know the particals are attracted but we don’t know why. So telling someone that gravity exists is a fact, but beyond that it’s really just theory.

Here’s an example: A christian thinks that the existence of god is fact. An atheist thinks that the non-existence of god is fact, when in truth, both are beliefs that are not based on proof.

However, I am an atheist because in my opinion, religion is a hinderance. Just think about that: Imagine all the things we could do if we weren’t busy worshiping some “God”, Think about all the conflict there wouldn’t have been without it, think what kind of freedom we would have, not being oppressed by religious fanatics.

I could go on forever, but i think I’ll stop here and let you people think about it for a while.

The word Science means “an organized body of knowledge based on observation and experiment.”

There is no way anyone could present anything to prove the Universe just happened, or big banged itself, or that God created it.

The other thing is that even if you were there at the beginning, in some way shape or form being a spectator watching the universe being created, it is only your perception. It is subjective. Once you try to communicate it, you are communicating something subjective. Even if you present evidence to someone, how they take it is subjective.

What most people take for truth is what people agree is true. So agreement is reality. If the universe were down to 1 person, whatever he believed is what would be true. As you increase the players in the game of life, it’s majority agreement that makes up truth.

Going back to perception, after you perceive something, you make a decision about it and you know it. That’s the key part of it all. So the highest truth for oneself is just knowing.

You start to walk down this road and we are talking more about philosophy–the love and pursuit of wisdom. Religion can be part of that, so long as it is honest in what it claims. Science should be the same way. Science can be dogmatic and downright fanatic. The theory of evolution for example, is just a theory. Yet we teach it in school. Kids being skitzy and not sitting still in class is a disease, which is really only a theory, yet we make billions of dollars on the drugs for it.

One writer wrote about religious fanatics. How about scientists, engineers and so forth that created nuclear missles. They are only useful in a society that craves suicide. Examples of these abound.

I don’t in the end think it’s a problem to teach that theories exist. Say the big bang or God. Go ahead and teach both. While you’re at it, throw in FSM.

@ CB-
Do you have a fucking clue what you’re talking about?
Evolution is a theory, but one with evidence to back it up. I can’t disprove a god. But if there is one it’s nothing like we could imagine and, ipso facto, nothing like any of the religions say. So by that logic religion is counter science and counter Philosophy. It puts a lead round your neck. You can go anywhere you like till you pull on the leash.
Science says “Break the leash! Leave your yard! Go explore and find out for your self! Chase rabbits and sniff trees!” it’s the challenge of finding the truth that keeps the enlightened going. Because true enlightenment is about knowing you’ll never understand everything but not giving up anyway.